Evelyn

[biffvernon]

I gather that Evelyn has now been permanetly banned from this forum. I suppose one or two idiots will have a self-satisfactory gloat, just as there may be one or two people left somewhere who think Mark Thompson is a fine defender of the media's impartiality.

Free speech, even within the privately owned sectors of the media, is a prerequisite of a noble society.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Why the move from temporary sin-binning to permanent?

 

[Essex]

Where can we find her blog?

 

[Flyfisher]

Free speech, even within the privately owned sectors of the media, is a prerequisite of a noble society.

But with freedom comes responsibility. Or do you also think Jonathan Ross should not have been suspended from the BBC for his recent outburst of 'telling it like it is' ?

 

[andrew gayton]

I remain baffled as to the fact that Evelyn was even banned temporarily; if she has been permanantly banned, then I can only be completely dismayed as to why the decision makers have thought this a good move for the ongoing worth of the forum. Evelyn has made such a positive cotribution to this forum and has indeed encouraged others to become involved; those others who have a huge breadth of knowledge that they have contributed quite freely. I may be wrong, but I am of the opinion that I have witnessed this forum's decline through questionable input from those less learned and least willing to listen to and or engage in a robust or reasoned argument.

 

[andrew gayton]

Free speech, even within the privately owned sectors of the media, is a prerequisite of a noble society.

But with freedom comes responsibility. Or do you also think Jonathan Ross should not have been suspended from the BBC for his recent outburst of 'telling it like it is' ?

No; mountains and mole hills.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Free speech, even within the privately owned sectors of the media, is a prerequisite of a noble society.

But with freedom comes responsibility. Or do you also think Jonathan Ross should not have been suspended from the BBC for his recent outburst of 'telling it like it is' ?

No; mountains and mole hills.

Andrew, with the greatest respect, that is a subjective judgement - your molehill is someone else's legitimate mountain. There are plenty on here (and those no longer here who have been chased off and thus lost to the cause forever) who may come to a different conclusion to you. We have to respect that.

For me, I found that the message got lost in its transmission, and this often greatly devalued its worth.

Anyway the forum is no one's proerty (save the mods) and so will develop in the way that the contributors take it - "worthy" or not as we may be. If it becomes a DIY forum or a campaigning forum for a while because that is what is posted, then so be it I guess.

One final comment - if I don't like the "rules" of a club (written or unspoken) then I can leave and set up my own club with my own rules. That is the essence of freedom and free speech.

Peace and love. :lol:

 

[Schoolmarm]

I remain baffled as to the fact that Evelyn was even banned temporarily; if she has been permanantly banned, then I can only be completely dismayed as to why the decision makers have thought this a good move for the ongoing worth of the forum. Evelyn has made such a positive contribution to this forum and has indeed encouraged others to become involved; those others who have a huge breadth of knowledge that they have contributed quite freely. I may be wrong, but I am of the opinion that I have witnessed this forum's decline through questionable input from those less learned and least willing to listen to and or engage in a robust or reasoned argument.

Well put and totally agree.


It is a tragedy that a few men on here have seen fit to plot and plan the removal of Evelyn. Presumably it isn't enough that they are "important" in their day jobs, they have to be the most important on here too. I note that none of the protagonists seem to have any skills or knowledge with regard to craftmanship or period property.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

It is a tragedy that a few men on here have seen fit to plot and plan the removal of Evelyn. Presumably it isn't enough that they are "important" in their day jobs, they have to be the most important on here too. I note that none of the protaganists seem to have any skills or knowledge with regard to craftmanship or period property.

A remarkable post Schoolmarm - now it is a sexist plot that was planned by skillless "men"? Quite, quite silly.

I have no idea who contacted the moderators, nor their gender. I know I haven't contacted them. I suspect that "beka" may well have had cause to and is also probably female. Not that it is of the remotest relevance or importance. I think if you re-read my post above you'll see that I think the forum belongs to all and not to some or one.

I suggest folk calm down a little bit and enjoy the forum, before this thread also gets locked and deleted.

 

[Feltwell]

There are plenty on here (and those no longer here who have been chased off and thus lost to the cause forever) who may come to a different conclusion to you. We have to respect that.

For me, I found that the message got lost in its transmission, and this often greatly devalued its worth.

Anyway the forum is no one's proerty (save the mods) and so will develop in the way that the contributors take it - "worthy" or not as we may be. If it becomes a DIY forum or a campaigning forum for a while because that is what is posted, then so be it I guess.

One final comment - if I don't like the "rules" of a club (written or unspoken) then I can leave and set up my own club with my own rules. That is the essence of freedom and free speech.

I couldn't agree more - the moderators provide the facilities for us to use this forum, do not charge us for the privilege and we should respect what they decide, we are after all free to go elsewhere if we wish. Of course they gain by increased traffic to their site but to my mind that is a more than fair trade-off.

Personal opinion is one thing - clearly Evelyn has a huge amount of knowledge and commitment - but this is ultimately a commercial venture and if a participant is acting in a manner which in the opinion of the moderator may harm that venture then I fail to see how you can blame them for taking action.

 

[Jon Maine]

I am saddened by this latest news.

Ev is a mine of information.

She has bluntly corrected me on occasion however whilst feeling snubbed I did have my facts wrong. I have to say I understand others have felt more bruised than this and I am not trying to undermine those peoples feelings.

I would appeal to the Forum to re-consider their position, after all if Ev was "repeatedly disrespectful" that was before the temporary ban which is now a permanent one. I am sure lessons have been learnt. I hope that this has been a shock tactic to underline the point rather than a permanent ban.

It seems that when creating a forum it really does become an online community through and through and well done to Rob and Simon for creating such a popular one.

 

[Lime]

I'm not questioning the moderation of this site in any way.
I'm sure the moderators care about what happens here and that they too have mixed feelings about the lady in question.
I will miss the information, knowledge and caring that was shown to period buildings and property by her but I won't miss the flaming at all.


Something I don't understand.
Why on earth does anyone finds other peoples' personal arguments interesting?
To me it seems a bit like the rubber-knecking of car crashes that causes so many more traffic hold ups and accidents on the roads.
The bored desperate for excitement?
It's just rather boring to me.

 

[biffvernon]

I think Schoolmarm may have been alluding to the clear correlation between people who don't like Evelyn's posts and people who spout rubbish, but I'm sure she can speak for herself, what with her not having been banned yet.

 

[Pford75]

Removed by poster due to libellous comments received

 

[DaveBrigg]

I'm not questioning the moderation of this site in any way.
I'm sure the moderators care about what happens here and that they too have mixed feelings about the lady in question.
I will miss the information, knowledge and caring that was shown to period buildings and property by her but I won't miss the flaming at all.

Ditto

I don't believe that there was any orchistrated conspiracy; she was quite able to cause concern to the mods without prompting from anyone else. It cannot be denied that Evelyn has a huge amount of knowledge and experience, and to be honest, most people were happy to accept this and learn from it. It also cannot be denied that at least four people in the last 12 months stated on the forum that they were leaving, not because they disagreed with advice given, but because of the tone which was used. I suspect that others may have left without saying goodbye, as I did on my first visit. She now has the freedom to post what she wants, reply to people how she chooses, even to drag up old quarrels if she wishes. I wish her the best of luck; if she gives what people want, I am sure her site will flourish.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Very well put Dave.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

It's actually pretty outrageous, really, that such a long-standing member (oo-er) can be shuffled off, in two stages, as Evelyn has been. I fail to see how, during her month's suspension, she can possibly have done anything on this site to warrant a permanent ban.

Whereas we have had the spectacle of people posting here in the last week having stirred up trouble a month ago, returning with "new" identities, and nothing being done to ban them. Perhaps that's because some of the grown ups on this site don't go running to the moderators the moment it stops being all nursery-friendly. Whereas newcomers and idiots reach for the "report this post" button straight away.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

Free speech, even within the privately owned sectors of the media, is a prerequisite of a noble society.

But with freedom comes responsibility. Or do you also think Jonathan Ross should not have been suspended from the BBC for his recent outburst of 'telling it like it is' ?

Not really. J Ross telling Andrew Sachs, via answerphone, that "Russell Brand F*ed your granddaughter", while crudely phrased, contained no error of fact, and garnered one complaint when broadcast. That well-known guardian of the nation's morals, the Daily Mail (whose editor is not averse to resorting to stronger language in front of his staff, and whose owner - and several "star" columnists, past and present, are serial adulterers), then saw an opportunity to knock the BBC and orchestrated a campaign of outrage by people who hadn't heard the broadcast.

The complainants should have been asked, "did you hear the broadcast?", and then told to F off.

 

[Jon Maine]

It's actually pretty outrageous, really, that such a long-standing member (oo-er) can be shuffled off, in two stages, as Evelyn has been. I fail to see how, during her month's suspension, she can possibly have done anything on this site to warrant a permanent ban.

Ev should be here on this forum as far as I am concerned. I agree it is ridiculous to suspend someone for a month only to then ban them for ever. Something seems cowardly about lack of communication like this to me, In total contrast to Ev who would think if something needs to be said it should be said at the right time and not left to be discovered a month later. Very unsatisfactory in my opinion.

Ev knows more than most on this forum, it seems such a shame that it has ended up in what appears to me to have been a witch-hunt.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

Then again, she can always come back under another name (after all, the mods have turned a blind eye to that before now, even with posters who were far more disruptive and far less well-informed)